Contributor: Biden's cancer diagnosis should be a teaching moment
Joe Biden's metastatic cancer diagnosis brings together two controversial issues: PSA testing for prostate cancer and presidential politics. To understand what is at stake Americans need basic information about PSA testing, and a frank discussion of the reasoning behind the prostate cancer screening decisions in the former president's case. The dribble of information we've gotten only creates more uncomfortable questions for Biden and his family. The absence of adequate explanation also fails to contribute to public appreciation of these important medical issues.
The prostate, a walnut-shaped gland at the base of the bladder, produces 'prostate specific antigen,' or PSA. Chemically classed as a glycoprotein, a sugar/protein aggregate, it leaks from the prostate into the blood, where its level can be measured with routine blood testing.
As men age, the prostate enlarges, increasing PSA levels. Screening tests take advantage of the fact that prostate cancer usually leaks more PSA than normal prostate tissue. And in the case of prostate cancer, the PSA typically rises relatively fast.
Read more: 6 doctors on Biden's cancer diagnosis, how it may have arisen and his treatment options
Beyond these basic facts, the PSA story becomes hazy. Although an elevated PSA may signal cancer, most men with an elevated PSA have benign prostate enlargement, not prostate cancer. Worse yet for screening, many men with prostate cancer have a mild and slow-moving disease that requires no treatment. They coexist with their disease rather than dying of it. This fact leads to the old adage that prostate cancer is the disease of long-lived popes and Supreme Court justices.
Medical advisory panels view PSA screening with skepticism partly due to the challenges of distinguishing benign PSA elevations from those related to cancer. Confirming a suspected cancer diagnosis requires prostate biopsies that can be painful and can produce side effects. Additionally, once a diagnosis is made, patients who might have coexisted with their disease may needlessly be subject to the harms of treatment, such as radiation and surgery. Finally, the benefits of early treatment of prostate cancer have been difficult to prove in clinical studies.
For all these reasons medical advisory panels have discouraged widespread testing or recommend a nuanced approach with careful discussion of risk and benefits between patients and their physicians.
Read more: Column: History alone should have made more reporters skeptical about Biden's health
Despite these concerns, the pendulum has swung toward more PSA testing in recent years. One reason is that improvements in radiographic imaging, such as MRI, allow for 'active surveillance' that can track early lesions for signs of spread, allowing doctors to distinguish between relatively benign cases of prostate cancer and those likely to progress. Interventions can then be directed more specifically to those at high risk.
In my medical practice, I have generally been an advocate for prostate cancer screening despite the controversy surrounding the clinical benefits. My experience leads me to believe that early diagnosis improves prognosis. But even without improved medical outcomes, patients and their families still benefit from early diagnosis for the purposes of planning. No one wants to be sideswiped by a late-stage symptomatic disease that limits both clinical and life choices.
In Biden's case, after some initial delay a spokesperson revealed on May 20 that there had been no PSA testing since 2014, during Biden's vice presidency. The reasons were not revealed.
Read more: Contributor: We all saw Biden's decline in real time. The scandal is how few people cared
Such a decision might have been justified based on questions about the benefits and risks of PSA testing. However, given the importance of the health of a vice president and potential future president one might have expected doctors to err on the side of more information. The omission invites speculation that the political implications of a borderline or increasing PSA might have played a decisive role. More information regarding his last PSA and the basis for the decision not to continue screening might put such speculation to rest.
In the past, the public has gained insight into important medical conditions from the unfortunate maladies affecting the first families. Colon cancer screening received increased attention after President Reagan's diagnosis in 1985. Betty Ford's public disclosure of her struggles with alcoholism and prescription drug dependency helped de-stigmatize treatment for substance use disorders.
Biden's illness also offers an opportunity. Consider that prostate cancer poses the greatest cancer mortality risk faced by non-smoking American men. Transparency in dealing with the former president's condition would serve the public interest by increasing awareness and understanding of the important, nuanced care decisions faced by so many men.
Daniel J. Stone is an internist and geriatrician in Beverly Hills.
If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - More renters are getting lawyers during evictions, and that's a good thing
Last year, landlords in Los Angeles filed almost 90,000 eviction cases. These cases are hard on tenants: Beyond just the immediate loss of housing, eviction leads to drops in income, higher rates of homelessness, serious health issues, and even increased risk of death. Yet the vast majority of Angelenos who navigate the complex eviction court process do so alone. That is about to change. Last month, Los Angeles joined 18 other cities, two counties, and five states across the nation where most or all tenants are guaranteed a lawyer when they go to court for an eviction. These 'right-to-counsel' programs improve outcomes for individual tenants, but their impact goes further: They can help to coordinate services, change the way the courts operate, and open up new possibilities for tenant organizing. As researchers who study eviction in the U.S., we urge more jurisdictions to push forward housing justice and stability for renters by extending the right to counsel. These programs are particularly important now. Over the last twenty years, rents have gone up much faster than incomes, leaving half of renters cost-burdened. Faced with these sorts of affordability challenges — and given evidence that homelessness is at an all-time high and rising — the federal government should be taking steps to protect renters. Instead, it is making the situation worse. The Trump administration is proposing shrinking the Department of Housing and Urban Development and gutting key benefits such as Housing Choice Vouchers. Right-to-counsel programs provide an example of what state and local governments can do to step into the leadership void created by federal retrenchment. Pop culture has sold us the myth that every defendant has the right to an attorney. But that's not true. Americans aren't necessarily guaranteed a government-funded lawyer when faced with a civil action such as debt collection, a child custody claim, or a landlord-tenant dispute. They're on their own unless they can afford a lawyer, and most people can't. These civil actions are far more common than criminal cases. In any given year, almost half of Americans have to deal with a civil legal case. Take eviction, for example. An average of 7.6 million Americans face eviction cases annually; only 4 percent of these tenants have lawyers to help them through this rapid, complicated, and deeply consequential process. That started changing in 2017, when New York City established the nation's first right to counsel program. Since then, this movement has expanded protections for renters in San Francisco, Baltimore, Detroit, and dozens of other places. Although programs differ in who receives access to a lawyer and when in the process they can get help, the basic idea is the same: to provide tenants with legal assistance during what may be their darkest hour. For tenants who now have lawyers, these programs make a world of difference. Eviction filings are less likely to result in a tenant being removed by court order, and even those that do result in evictions often leave the tenant owing less money. The benefits to health and well-being are also substantial. For example, the availability of right to counsel during pregnancy reduces adverse birth outcomes among newborns. At the end of the day, a lawyer cannot make up for missed rent. But in our work studying how jurisdictions have implemented right-to-counsel, we have seen how the presence of lawyers defending tenants can lead to wholesale culture shifts in civil courts — something that rental assistance and other one-time interventions don't achieve. We have seen courts where, rather than just rubber-stamping landlords' eviction cases, judges now inform tenants of their rights and postpone hearings to make sure that they are represented. Courts can become a place where advocates and social workers connect tenants with services and resources and diversion is a priority. To meet their full potential, state and local leaders need to provide the stable, long-term funding necessary to launch and run these programs right. That means adequate money for outreach and education so that tenants know that protections are available if they show up to court. It also means sufficient funding to ensure that enough lawyers are available, a challenge that the New York City program has faced. San Francisco provides a model of how to do this right, steadily increasing funding, even expanding support during the pandemic when other programs were being cut. Right to counsel programs are bringing change, justice, and hope for renters experiencing one of the most difficult challenges of their lives. As the federal government pulls back supports and reverses longstanding legal protections for low-income renters, it's time for state and local leaders to work together to expand protections like right-to-counsel in a sustainable way that can help as many families as possible avoid the irreversible fallout of eviction and the risk of homelessness. Peter Hepburn is an assistant professor of sociology at Rutgers University-Newark and associate director of Princeton University's Eviction Lab. Emily A. Benfer is a professor of clinical law at the George Washington University Law School and a research collaborator at the Princeton University Eviction Lab. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Onion
25 minutes ago
- The Onion
Hair Loss: Myth Vs. Fact
An estimated 80 million Americans suffer from hair loss, including thinning and male pattern baldness. The Onion examines the myths and facts surrounding hair loss. MYTH: Genetics are the main cause of hair loss. FACT: Hair loss is most commonly caused by standing too close to an open flame. MYTH: Hair loss is permanent. FACT: For six easy payments of $1,200, nothing is permanent. MYTH: Baldness is caused by too much testosterone. FACT: Baldness is caused by too little hair. MYTH: If your mom's father is bald, you'll be bald. FACT: If your mom's father ignores the feeble witch on the side of the road, you'll be bald. MYTH: Too much sun can lead to hair loss. FACT: Hair needs soil, water, and sunlight to grow. MYTH: Women aren't attracted to bald men. FACT: Every woman you've ever met is sexually aroused by Stanley Tucci.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: Battle over transgender athletes in school sports is only hurting the kids
To the editor: Not only is Chino Valley Unified school board President Sonja Shaw spreading misinformation and division, she's doing incredible harm to transgender girls who are trying to live their lives peacefully and productively ('Justice Department investigates California over allowing transgender athletes in girls' sports,' May 28). She calls them boys. They are not boys. Her lies only hurt these girls psychologically, and what they are going through is not easy. Her despicable narrative is a distraction for the harm felon President Trump and the MAGA Republicans are doing to Americans. Gerald Orcholski, Pasadena .. To the editor: Trump rants about transgender women competing in women's sports. Why does he never mention transgender men competing in men's sports? In any case, it has not been proved that transgender women necessarily have an advantage over cisgender women. In the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, a transgender woman weight lifter registered a 'did not finish' result after three failed lifts, while cisgender women won medals. David E. Ross, Oak Park This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
